Obama: Romney unqualified on the economy “as a whole”

posted at 2:41 pm on July 13, 2012 by Dustin Siggins

Once again, the differences between President Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaign themes are striking. In this case, “Hope & Change” is taking second fiddle to the “rich guy is out of touch” meme.

In his interview with Charlie Rose (check out the video at Real Clear Politics), Obama once again portrayed himself as the poor man’s protector. Via RCP’s transcript of the comments:

“When some people question why I would challenge his Bain record, the point I’ve made there in the past is, if you’re a head of a large private equity firm or hedge fund, your job is to make money. It’s not to create jobs. It’s not even to create a successful business – it’s to make sure that you’re maximizing returns for your investor. Now that’s appropriate. That’s part of the American way. That’s part of the system. But that doesn’t necessarily make you qualified to think about the economy as a whole, because as president, my job is to think about the workers. My job is to think about communities, where jobs have been outsourced.”

This is really just silly. I’m no fan of Mitt Romney’s candidacy, but Obama’s really stretching things here. A few examples:

1. RCP didn’t catch it in the transcript, but Obama said he’s focusing on Romney’s history with Bain because Romney is not talking about his four years as governor “very much.” I don’t know what the President considers “very much,” but I’m pretty sure Romney talked about his time as governor during his speech to the NAACP just this week. Hang on, let me check…yup. He did.

2. As Obama tried to claim Romney doesn’t talk about his time as governor, Rose interrupted him to say “or ran the Olympics.” I can’t tell whether or not Rose was agreeing with Obama or pointing out that Romney has another aspect to his campaign the President ignored in his comment, but either way Obama seems to be forgetting about another major aspect of Romney’s campaign.

3. Obama came into office dealing with a terrible economy and a recession that officially ended in June 2009. That’s before much, if any, stimulus money was handed out. Since then, including the stimulus, we’ve had trillions of dollars in new spending and Federal Reserve loans. We’ve seen welfare rolls go up because of unusually high unemployment, the economy stagger into something resembling a recovery, and “shovel-ready” jobs not be so shovel-ready. So I ask: what in Obama’s record makes him more qualified on the economy “as a whole?”

4. As President, Obama’s job is to first and foremost maximize freedom. Second, his job is to work with Congress to provide for the people what they cannot provide for themselves (such as national defense). That’s about it. It’s not his job to worry about communities — that’s what state and local governments are for. It’s not his job to think about workers instead of the entire country, either. What about the over-80% of American workers who are employed in the private sector? Should he worry about making sure their bosses, those dastardly business owners, have an efficient and economically fair tax and regulatory system under which to hire more workers? If so, Obama’s definitely failed in those areas.

I could keep going, but I’m speaking to the choir here. Again, this attack by Obama is just silly, and is so easily refuted on both the failure of his record and the breadth of success in Romney’s record I am surprised he’s making it.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Individuals agreeing to throw resources into a pot to create benefits good and services that the masses enjoy to make a profit = socialism = capitalism

Semi-interesting game.

farsighted on July 13, 2012 at 10:27 PM
———

Individuals agreeing to throw resources into a pot to create benefits that the masses enjoy = socialism that allows people to throw resources into a pot to create good and services that the masses enjoy to make a profit = the only way capitalism can/does ever work

Individuals agreeing to throw resources into a pot to create benefits that the masses enjoy = socialism that allows people to throw resources into a pot to create good and services that the masses enjoy to make a profit = the only way capitalism can/does ever work

Individuals agreeing to throw resources into a pot to create benefits that the masses enjoy = socialism that allows people to throw resources into a pot to create good and services that the masses enjoy to make a profit = the only way capitalism can/does ever work

Dave Rywall on July 13, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Nope. Marx is wrong.

farsighted on July 13, 2012 at 10:43 PM
——

I never said Marx was right.

But what I typed above is right. A country cannot function without a heavy dose of socialist everybody kick in to pay for goods/services for the masses.

What you described is the foundation of Marxist theory. The collective came first, and then came the profit makers.

Marx’s theory of history

farsighted on July 13, 2012 at 11:01 PM
—–
Christ, I didn’t say you have to nationalize everything. But you need to have a great number of things that a government provides/oversee/protects. And obvisouly, you have to adequately fund all of them or you get crumbling bridges, shit education, etc etc.

But yes, without the basics first: clean drinking water, roads, defense, fire depts, police, disease control, manufacturing standards, safety standards, etc etc, your country cannot function. All that shit is by nature, socialist, because everybody pays in the get some benefit out.

I don’t often make blanket statements, but I’ll say it now: Socialism never works. NEVER. You can not honestly find me an example of socialism that works. And the things that government can do better than private industry are very few. Can we quit arguing with the Canadian douchebag (but I repeat myself) and just get back to following the [expletive deleted] Constitution?

Christ, I didn’t say you have to nationalize everything. But you need to have a great number of things that a government provides/oversee/protects. And obvisouly, you have to adequately fund all of them or you get crumbling bridges, shit education, etc etc.

Dave Rywall on July 13, 2012 at 11:32 PM

aww, kinda like the Crown Corporations of Canada :-), quite the model to emulate :-)… but then methinks the Royal Crown is still the rightful owner of those, isn’t it, Mr Socialism :)…btw, you still British subjects there, still singing ‘God save the Queen’ in schools there, or ‘oh, oh, oh canada’ is the national anthem now…

In 2008, plenty of people pointed out that Obama was not qualified to even run an ice cream truck. After 3.5 years of running our economy into the ground, he is still not qualified to run an ice cream truck, or any part of our economy.

I don’t often make blanket statements, but I’ll say it now: Socialism never works. NEVER. You can not honestly find me an example of socialism that works. And the things that government can do better than private industry are very few. Can we quit arguing with the Canadian douchebag (but I repeat myself) and just get back to following the [expletive deleted] Constitution?

gryphon202 on July 14, 2012 at 12:09 AM
———-

In one breath you say socialism never works and then you admit in the very next sentence that socialism works.

“Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.”

“An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and by redirecting libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or “projecting,” those same faults onto another person or object.”

In one breath you say socialism never works and then you admit in the very next sentence that socialism works.

Dave Rywall on July 14, 2012 at 7:29 AM

Keep plucking that chicken and beating that straw man, Dave. Are you saying that the constitution is socialist? If you are, I do not think that word means what you think it means. I am a conservative, not an anarchist.

Keep plucking that chicken and beating that straw man, Dave. Are you saying that the constitution is socialist? If you are, I do not think that word means what you think it means. I am a conservative, not an anarchist.

gryphon202 on July 14, 2012 at 8:39 AM
——–
Government, by its very nature is a socialist undertaking. Individuals agreeing to throw resources into a pot to create benefits for the many, overseen by the government.

That this fact eludes so many shrieky clowns like you who refuse to acknowledge the vast amounts of socialism required to make a country function is entirely unsurprising.

Yes, your constitution is a great deal a socialist document. Suck it up.

Government, by its very nature is a socialist undertaking. Individuals agreeing to throw resources into a pot to create benefits for the many, overseen by the government.

That this fact eludes so many shrieky clowns like you who refuse to acknowledge the vast amounts of socialism required to make a country function is entirely unsurprising.

Yes, your constitution is a great deal a socialist document. Suck it up.

Dave Rywall on July 14, 2012 at 8:47 AM

Either you’re an Obamaphile or a Paulbot, but either way you’re a moron and you don’t belong here with your intellectual betters. If you really believe that government is socialist by its very nature, and that the Constitution is therefore a socialist manifesto only because it sets up a form of government (that I might add recognizes the primacy of the sovereignty of the respective states), then you and I have nothing further to discuss.

You flatter and humble me, Spark. I am merely stating a tried-and-true fact, something that should essentially be a settled question.. Drywall is sadly misinformed as to what exactly constitutes “socialism,” and by extension I’d say he probably has no idea what real tyranny is either. I think it’s safe to say that many of my most strident critics here have a better handle on those concepts than he does.

You flatter and humble me, Spark. I am merely stating a tried-and-true fact, something that should essentially be a settled question.. Drywall is sadly misinformed as to what exactly constitutes “socialism,” and by extension I’d say he probably has no idea what real tyranny is either. I think it’s safe to say that many of my most strident critics here have a better handle on those concepts than he does.

gryphon202 on July 14, 2012 at 11:46 AM
—–

Obviously pure socialism doesn’t work. Neither does pure capitalism.

You clowns are in such hilarious denial when your lives are already full of socialism.

Individuals agreeing to throw resources into a pot to create benefits that the masses enjoy = socialism

Wrong. Individuals agreeing forced to throw resources into a pot to create benefits that the masses enjoy for individuals who don’t contribute = socialism<

Individuals agreeing to throw resources into a pot to create benefits for that group to enjoy = liberty

Being able to not participate in group activity = freedom

Being forced to participate in group activity = tyranny

BobMbx on July 14, 2012 at 10:36 AM
——-

So, in your case, you're someone who vehemently disagrees with the current POTUS' policies and programs and you don't want to pay into them, so the very idea that you are "forced" to by the laws of your land (that you already agree he has the right and power to put forth to the various gov't bodies to become the law(s) of your land) makes the programs socialist? That is f*cking hilarious. And childish. The election's over. The Supreme Court has spoken. You don't like the answer you got, but that's just too f*cking bad, now isn't it.

You keep telling yourself that, Dave. Why you even feel the need to come here and display your stupidity is beyond me, but it’s beneath your dignity. And by “dignity,” I mean your basic worth that comes from being human, which happened through no fault of your own.

Up until now about the only people I knew who thought any coercive government at all might be considered a form of socialism were anarchists, anarchist libertarians, and anarcho-capitalists.

But even they do not use the term “socialism” to describe all government. And even they recognize and accept completely consensual associations that could be called a form of government, where “completely consensual” means you are not forced to participate or “contribute” — AKA pay taxes — if you choose not to participate. They do not consider such completely voluntary associations to be a form of coercive or “socialist” government.

While they may be wrong headed unrealistic utopians, at least they use the same word definitions the rest of us use.

The notion that government = socialism is simply wrong by any accepted historic, modern, or even colloquial definition of the word. I bet at least 99.999% of avowed and admitted socialists do not accept that definition. Socialism is about heavy government involvement in economic activity with the objective of planning it, controlling it, controlling economic behavior, controlling economic choices, and controlling the distribution of goods and services so that economic wealth is produced and distributed “fairly”, AKA “social justice”.

Socialism regards capitalism, free enterprise, and free markets as at best a wild dangerous beast that must be shackled and carefully directed for purposeful use by society. Socialism is antagonistic towards capitalism and free markets. It is essentially defined contra-capitalism.

Obviously local fire departments are not a form of socialism. But their funding is almost always forced by coercive government, even when by a democratic plurality or majority vote. That is where doctrinaire libertarians have a problem with local fire departments. Not because they are a manifestation of socialism.

But when you make up your own definitions, any word can mean whatever you want it to mean — to you and only you. However, communication with other human beings can become extremely difficult. But if one has other objectives and is not really interested in communication, then…

But when you make up your own definitions, any word can mean whatever you want it to mean — to you and only you. However, communication with other human beings can become extremely difficult. But if one has other objectives and is not really interested in communication, then…

farsighted on July 14, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Well said. I had an online conversation with a leftist who made sexist and racist remarks. He had said that as a white male I wasn’t qualified to speak on issues regarding women and minorities. He further insisted I shouldn’t even be allowed to do so.

When I challenged him as a racist, sexist and tyrant he insisted I didn’t know the definitions of those words. When I further challenged him to post the definitions so all in the conversation could see who was right, he then insisted the definitions in Webster’s were incorrect. That’s right, he said the single book the entire english speaking world has used to define our language for over 100 years was wrong and he was right.

There is no reasoning with idiots like drywall. They know what they know and the rest of us are wrong about every damn thing there is if we don’t agree with them 100%. Period. Don’t bother, he’s never ever going to change his mind about anything.

The really funny thing though? He’ll also tell you how open minded he is. Truly pathetic.

Again, this attack by Obama is just silly, and is so easily refuted on both the failure of his record and the breadth of success in Romney’s record I am surprised he’s making it.

Obama is trying to recast Romney’s image. For this he does not need facts. He only needs a lot of airtime with a willing media, and a lot of repetition

Obama needs to recast Romney before the debates, when Romney gets his own national airtime for the first time

I believe Obie’s handlers underestimated the effects of Obamacare, which has tanked any chance of recovery. Business operates on anticipated cost, and the cost just became real with the Court decision. He already blew QE1 and 2, and QE3 aint gonna work with the EU crash. As the economy shrinks so does Obama, and his pointing finger doesnt work as good

Could be they figured the Romney smear might take some heat off the recent economic numbers, which are so bad that even a controversy about a stupid smear becomes useful place to hide

Notice how other news is being pushed off the page for this artifical ‘cat fight’: If the weak kneed GOPs could just stop joining the Obama chorus, Obama would be left holding the bag

If I check my watch, it is almost half past time for Bloomberg to ban another snackfood. That also works to push reality off the news teleprompters

Bloomberg is so good at killing political momentum with his arrogance he ought to go on the WH payroll